German Court: ISPs Must Hand Over File Sharer Info

itwbennett writes "The German Federal Court of Justice has ruled that ISPs have to turn over to rights-holders the names and addresses of illegal file sharers, but only 'if a judge rules that the file sharer indeed infringed on copyright,' said the court's spokeswoman, Dietlind Weinland. The ruling overturns two previous rulings by regional courts and is significant because the violation doesn't have to happen on a commercial scale, but applies whenever 'it is possible to know who was using an IP address at the time of the infringement,' the court said."

Comments

"..know who was using an IP address..." ?

[pipedwho]

So, how do they know how many people live at the residence serviced by the named account? And by extension which one was using the computer at the time the alleged offence is supposed to have occurred?

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ?

[zero.kalvin]

There is nothing wrong in questioning the person to whom the service is registered to. However, I agree automatic guilt assumption is wrong, but I repeat if your name is on it then you should be questioned.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ?

[bky1701]

Which is why the owner of a car is liable if it is stolen and used in a robbery?

Except not. Having your property associated with a crime does not prove criminal activity itself. It at best proves you were an accessory.

Your post is just scare tactics regurgitated from ISP PR departments, to sell more connections by scaring people into closing their public nodes.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ?

[pipedwho]

And if they don't like the answer?

eg 1. There are a number of people in my household, including friends that visit regularly and all have access to the wifi network.

eg 2. The wifi node at the local coffee shop is accessible by anyone within range.

eg 3. The wifi at the place where I work is accessible by hundreds of employees and clients.

Re:"..know who was using an IP address..." ?

[Johann Lau]

What? That's an odd way of saying "thanks for the correction."

But instead you just made MORE wrong claims! Great.

You realize that the United States effectively defined "amendment" and "constitution" in the sense you understand them, right? [..] And that after that small mess, we effectively rewrote your constitution to how it is now?

Citations needed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution#History_and_development

But you can't know if someone infringed copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

But you can't know if someone infringed copyright unless you know all of the circumstances of the copying, including the identities involved.

There are many ways a person may not have been infringing copyright (statutory, fair-use, license, ownership, etc.) even if they were definitely involved in copying.

If you must prove that someone infringed copyright without knowing who they are first, it is an impossible standard.

Of course, I expect that this merely technical truth will be disregarded entirely.

change

[Penurious Penguin]

Something big needs to change in the way we use the internet. The concept of ISP's being the gate-keepers who double as loose hussies for Authoritaria is a dead end. Is a P2P wireless distributed internet immune from censorship and central planning possible? Do I know exactly how to do this? No. But it can be done in theory, though not without a massive tantrum from Omnicontrolus, and a few bits of austerity. This may sound silly, but if something similar doesn't happen, then I think it's just going to be a perpetual fight with incremental casualties leading eventually to death, or some pathetic and crippled version of something previously beautiful. I think some of us might take for granted how much fighting it takes just to hold on to what we have, while taking grievous blows to privacy and still losing a little here and little there in the process.

Perhaps it's a big-headed notion, but a formidable effort toward such a schema might at least distract these ravenous fiends enough to prevent them from purging freedom from the spectrum altogether. Maybe with the help of private satellites and (I don't know yet; do you?), it is realistic enough to try. I'd rather take some blows to bloat and luxury than to freedom.

In Germany, you can be fined for having an unencrypted AP -- if someone uses it for "illegal" file sharing. It'll be the same elsewhere soon enough. And it will get worse and worse, until you can't connect without a chip up the arse or job in "intelligence". Some say "Darknets", but is that not something the ISP's could crush easily enough? I actually don't know; I'm asking.

We've had the DHS (of all agencies!) taking down domains in the US. The "UK" wants to retain all user's ISP data. The "US" wants likewise. What makes people think they aren't already? I suppose the level of patience, or passive retention of the ISPs and governments confuses some. I personally believe no data is destroyed, but I am sure a credible /. champion will humiliate me for admitting this.

I guess what I am saying, or spewing, is that it's going to take a lot development and hard work to even have a chance of things not sucking ultra badly in the future. And it's going to take a change on the same scale as their own ludicrous and grotesque proposals, but on the positive side. And their proposals are only becoming more and more insane. How insane will they get before one succeeds?

Pirate Party in 4 regional parliaments

[JasperKlewer]

The influence of big media companies on the judicial system is exactly the reason why the German Pirate Party now has seats in 4 out of the 16 regional parliaments. My German friends say they feel oppressed by the legal harassment they face from law firms, extorting money from ordinary citizens in return for not being sued for large sums of money.